The federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy legislation (CAFE) was originally passed in 1975 to mandate better fuel economy on all new cars. It was passed in response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973, in the hopes that better mileage would reduce our dependency on imported oil. At the time, auto manufacturers had fleet-wide averages of 13 miles per gallon (mpg).

By 1978, they were required to meet the 18 mpg target that increased each year since then. For 2011, mandated efficiency is 30.2 miles per gallon. By 2016, when the current legislation tops out, the required fuel economy is 39 miles per gallon. If an auto manufacturer misses the targeted fuel economy in a given year, they must pay massive fines.As with all legislation, there are unintended consequences. In this case, the law originally applied only to automobiles, then was expanded to light trucks. Heavy trucks and SUVs were excluded. At the time this legislation passed many families used the station wagon as their primary family vehicle.Station wagons were less fuel-efficient than cars and dragged down an auto manufacturers fleet-wide fuel economy. This was the death knell for the station wagon. Many of us have fond memories of touring the countryside in a Chevy station wagon. To get around the fleet average requirement, car manufacturers focused on heavier trucks and SUVs. I myself bought a GMC Suburban that only got 10 miles to the gallon city and 12 mpg on the Highway.So much for improving fuel economy! Millions of Americans like me switched from fuel-efficient cars to gas-hogging trucks and SUVs. As a result our dependence on foreign oil increased as a result of CAFE. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576383954208546170.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)President Obama and his administration are currently working on guidelines for fuel economy for 2017 through to 2025. I was shocked to see that their initial target rate for 2025 is 56 mpg. It will be difficult for the gasoline engine, which has fueled the American economy for over a century, to meet the proposed standards.It could force automakers into electric cars, which have huge lithium-ion batteries. Lithium is a somewhat scarce mineral that is mined in the United States and other countries such as China, Chile, Bolivia and Afghanistan. It can also be extracted from seawater. It is the lightest metal and is highly reactive when exposed to water. When lithium comes in contact with water it produces hydrogen, a highly explosive gas, and lithium hydroxide. As a result lithium is normally stored in mineral oil or covered with petroleum jelly to prevent a reaction.As more vehicles are produced that use lithium-ion batteries, I am concerned about safety and the disposal of these batteries when they wear out or are damaged in an accident. I'm sure that the auto manufacturers will have many pundits stand up to say how safe these batteries are.I also expect that there will be unintended consequences just as there were unintended consequences to banning incandescent light bulbs. Whoever thought we would need a hazardous materials suit to clean up the mercury from a broken light bulb in our living room? I am neither a scientist nor an environmentalist, but my gut feeling is that millions of vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries will have a serious negative impact on the environment.To meet the existing 2016 guidelines many of the automobile manufacturers have already strived to make cars lighter. Some cars no longer have a spare tire. I would not drive a vehicle that does not have a spare tire or at least the doughnut tire that has a useful range of 50 miles. Without a spare, cars will need to be towed to a tire store in order to have the flat fixed or to purchase a new tire. This will only make money for tow trucks while inconveniencing the general public.The FDA is targeting cancer patientsThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not want to be left out of the race to reduce our quality of life. While we are worrying about the imposition of strict fuel efficiency guidelines, they are quietly moving to delist Avastin as a treatment for breast cancer because it costs $100,000 a year per patient.The FDA prefers bumping off breast cancer stricken Americans rather than paying for an effective treatment. In 2008, Medicare paid $537 million for Avastin.There are currently 17,000 women in the United States who depend on this drug to fight their cancer. Avastin has been used successfully around the world since 2004 and has a good track record.By delisting this formulation, Medicare alone will save over half a billion dollars annually. Insurance companies will likely drop this drug from their formulary, which means they will no longer pay for it.Again, the Death Panels have ruled! Government bureaucrats and politicians have decided to sacrifice American lives to save a few dollars. They will then spend this money foolishly on unwinnable wars. Once more our government intrudes on the physician-patient relationship to the detriment of the American people.The government wins twice by withholding this treatment. They save on Medicare and Medicaid up front, and then save on Social Security payments when the patient dies prematurely because an effective treatment was withheld.Not to be outdone, President Obama and his administration want to target physicians in a sting operation. As a result of cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, some physicians have stopped practicing. Other doctors are refusing to accept new Medicare and Medicaid patients as the cost of treating these patients greatly exceeds the amount the government is willing to pay.Last year, the government unilaterally cut Medicare payments to physicians by 21 percent. How would you feel if your employer decided to pay you and your fellow employees 21 percent less? Would you look for new job at another employer or would you silently accept the reduction?At a time when there is a dire shortage of primary care physicians we cannot afford to force practitioners into premature retirement.Update on the Jihad against ChristiansIn past articles, I commented on the jihad against Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. Last week in Egypt Muslims burned down eight homes owned by Christian families. They also surrounded a church and threatened to kill a priest who was hiding inside the church. In the Philippines, Muslims bombed a church killing two Christians.I am disturbed that the media here in the United States did not cover this. If Christians had attacked a mosque I am sure it would have made headline news on NBC. For some reason Muslims are permitted to destroy houses and churches and to kill Christians but it is not newsworthy.The current Muslim jihad against Christians has to stop. We cannot continue to support the persecution of Christians through our silence. I say to Muslims intent on harming Christians and Jews that they remember the Crusades. It is only a matter of time until Christians stop turning the other cheek and start fighting back.The militant Muslims must stop their religious persecutions. We should cut all foreign aid to Egypt and the Philippines until such time as they permit people to practice their faith freely and openly.© 2011 Gordon Smith All Rights Reserved